Gantt v. Lanham

966 F.2d 1442, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21657, 1992 WL 131281
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 11, 1992
Docket92-6021
StatusUnpublished

This text of 966 F.2d 1442 (Gantt v. Lanham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gantt v. Lanham, 966 F.2d 1442, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21657, 1992 WL 131281 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

966 F.2d 1442

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
George W. GANTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Correction; Carla
Withers, Coordinator; Marvin Robbins, I.G.C., in
their personal and individual
capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6021.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 1992
Decided: June 11, 1992

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

George W. Gantt appeals from the district court's order granting Gantt's motion to voluntarily dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). A plaintiff may not appeal an order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a case without conditions. Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 809 F.2d 548, 555 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Gantt's "Motion to Strike" cases, his "Motion Requesting Stay of Proceedings," and his motion for an order to show cause. We deny his motion to deconsolidate cases as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
966 F.2d 1442, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21657, 1992 WL 131281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gantt-v-lanham-ca4-1992.